Atolls, Bases, and Bears, Oh My
Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
Atolls, Bases, and Bears, Oh My
What’s become apparent is there’s too many Ports capable of being built up to large size, particularly in the Pac/SoPac areas. Most of these places were simply anchorages with nominal shore establishments; viz Truk and Ulithi, for example. So Matt and Mo have proposed a drastic reduction in the base and potential port sizes in those areas.
Much of the “port size” related activities can be undertaken by various “tender-type” vessels and specifically tailored Port Units, Sub Base Units, Port and Fleet Adv Base Forces, and the like. Port functions can be performed and enhanced by specialized ships and NavSup/Shore Party devices. Thus, there is no need for arbitrarily high indexed locations just because of their historical nature. It can all be done with data and probably in a more historical and reasonable manner.
The advantages of this approach are manifold. No more building atolls into Ports. If a CA gets whacked, it can run for cover, but to fix it, one will have to collect and send a TF of at least an AR and an AKE. And that won’t likely fix it completely, but perhaps enough to get it to Yokohama, Manila, Pearl, or Sydney. Combat damage becomes significant because there’s no convenient places to hide.
An atoll base doesn’t rearm squat; not without ammunition ships. An atoll base doesn’t have jack-all for piers; repairs, load/unload support are done by “vessels” and specialty squads. Scrappy Kessing’s main “fleet” base on Tulagi was a bunch of righteous Gobs. He had absolutely no heavy shore-based equipment whatsoever. Even today, one can see the residual facilities; a single ditch that served as a repair point, that was half empty only at low tide.
This degree of infrastructure is what Don’s Babies were designed to address. The entire gestalt of ships and devices is there to promote a rational development of bases and their defenses. But the notional stock base indexing makes it all nugatory.
We propose to rape the stock indexing and put things into a perspective where one must make strategic decisions more in line with those made by the actual participants.
It works well for us. What think you?
Much of the “port size” related activities can be undertaken by various “tender-type” vessels and specifically tailored Port Units, Sub Base Units, Port and Fleet Adv Base Forces, and the like. Port functions can be performed and enhanced by specialized ships and NavSup/Shore Party devices. Thus, there is no need for arbitrarily high indexed locations just because of their historical nature. It can all be done with data and probably in a more historical and reasonable manner.
The advantages of this approach are manifold. No more building atolls into Ports. If a CA gets whacked, it can run for cover, but to fix it, one will have to collect and send a TF of at least an AR and an AKE. And that won’t likely fix it completely, but perhaps enough to get it to Yokohama, Manila, Pearl, or Sydney. Combat damage becomes significant because there’s no convenient places to hide.
An atoll base doesn’t rearm squat; not without ammunition ships. An atoll base doesn’t have jack-all for piers; repairs, load/unload support are done by “vessels” and specialty squads. Scrappy Kessing’s main “fleet” base on Tulagi was a bunch of righteous Gobs. He had absolutely no heavy shore-based equipment whatsoever. Even today, one can see the residual facilities; a single ditch that served as a repair point, that was half empty only at low tide.
This degree of infrastructure is what Don’s Babies were designed to address. The entire gestalt of ships and devices is there to promote a rational development of bases and their defenses. But the notional stock base indexing makes it all nugatory.
We propose to rape the stock indexing and put things into a perspective where one must make strategic decisions more in line with those made by the actual participants.
It works well for us. What think you?
Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.
Yippy Ki Yay.
RE: Atolls, Bases, and Bears, Oh My
It's gonna hurt, but after all "Pain is weakness leaving the body!"What think you?
Go for it!
Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home
- LargeSlowTarget
- Posts: 4800
- Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
RE: Atolls, Bases, and Bears, Oh My
Longtime advocate of nerfing base sizes here! [;)]
RE: Atolls, Bases, and Bears, Oh My
Go for it. It will present new challenges, make it more accurate and revitalize the game.
- ny59giants
- Posts: 9881
- Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:02 pm
RE: Atolls, Bases, and Bears, Oh My
Logistics...Logistics...Logistics [&o]
As players, we need to study this part of the game in more detail and put it into practice, IMO. Reducing ports sizes should help somewhat.
As a side note, I keep wondering if there needs to be a revamping of fuel usage and transport in the game. If memory serves me right, but it could be wrong, both sides shouldn't be able to have such a high rate of operational tempo in '42 like we tend to see in most games, whether stock or a mod.
As players, we need to study this part of the game in more detail and put it into practice, IMO. Reducing ports sizes should help somewhat.
As a side note, I keep wondering if there needs to be a revamping of fuel usage and transport in the game. If memory serves me right, but it could be wrong, both sides shouldn't be able to have such a high rate of operational tempo in '42 like we tend to see in most games, whether stock or a mod.
[center][/center]
RE: Atolls, Bases, and Bears, Oh My
You may need to add some auxiliaries to put at Truk. I think I read somewhere that it was the biggest and most capable Japanese base outside of Japan at war's start. I suppose you could give some of the auxiliaries a movement of 0 to prevent them from leaving.
Bill
Bill
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
-
- Posts: 1514
- Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 9:08 pm
- Location: Denver Colorado
RE: Atolls, Bases, and Bears, Oh My
ORIGINAL: witpqs
It's gonna hurt, but after all "Pain is weakness leaving the body!"What think you?
Go for it!
Agreed!
Mac
LAV-25 2147
RE: Atolls, Bases, and .... Options, Oh My
While it's true, I would give players a choice and add new scenario(s) with proposed changes. You cannot please everyone, but giving options (different scens, settings) you get pretty close. After all it's just... THE game.
RE: Atolls, Bases, and .... Options, Oh My
One thought that surfaced in the Ulithi debate was a need to define some island s further.
Atolls like Ulithi, Truk, Kwajalien etc provided massive Fleet anchorages, some atolls had a lagoon but were too shallow to provide harbour but many islands were little more than the tip of undersea mountains and could not provide much more than basic harbour such as Nauru& Ocean Islands.
Looks like an interesting project.
Atolls like Ulithi, Truk, Kwajalien etc provided massive Fleet anchorages, some atolls had a lagoon but were too shallow to provide harbour but many islands were little more than the tip of undersea mountains and could not provide much more than basic harbour such as Nauru& Ocean Islands.
Looks like an interesting project.
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
RE: Atolls, Bases, and .... Options, Oh My
Go for it, Symon. Will make the game more interesting
Chris
(Did you ever stop to think and forget to start?)
(Did you ever stop to think and forget to start?)
RE: Atolls, Bases, and .... Options, Oh My
If I remember the AR's will fix 5 points of major damage,since your idea is to limit the ports, is there a way to increase the repair points the AR's can repair? Also something special for the floating dry docks, perhaps require a repair ship of some type be present.
- Bullwinkle58
- Posts: 11297
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm
RE: Atolls, Bases, and Bears, Oh My
ORIGINAL: Symon
It works well for us. What think you?
My only concern would be how it affects VPs.
The Moose
RE: Atolls, Bases, and Bears, Oh My
That's why I respect VPs for what they represent, but not for strict interpretations like being just enough for auto-vic, or just short of auto-vic, and so on.ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: Symon
It works well for us. What think you?
My only concern would be how it affects VPs.
Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home
RE: Atolls, Bases, and Bears, Oh My
The Japanese Navy didn't plan for a war at a long distance from Japan until the very end of the peace. Thus, they never made any great effort to develop overseas bases such as Truk or a substantial fleet train. "The Decisive Battle", the focus of their prewar training, was supposed to take place in home waters.
In the game Truk is a significant base at the start. From the link it really sounds like just a name on a map.
http://faroutliers.wordpress.com/2014/0 ... pans-navy/
In the game Truk is a significant base at the start. From the link it really sounds like just a name on a map.
http://faroutliers.wordpress.com/2014/0 ... pans-navy/
-
- Posts: 3394
- Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:59 am
RE: Atolls, Bases, and Bears, Oh My
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: Symon
It works well for us. What think you?
My only concern would be how it affects VPs.
Game balance as well.
What you're proposing is a step towards realism, but very much in favour of the Allies (with their abundance of tenders) while severely limiting Japanese fleet operations.
My suggestion to counter this would be to reduce the time it takes to convert some Japanese merchant ships into tenders.
RE: Atolls, Bases, and Bears, Oh My
Very true in a certain sense. Truk was a "bugaboo". It couldn't be reconnoitered, so nobody knew anything about it. The fear of it just sorta growed, like Topsy [;)] It was well defended by troops and guns and such, but as a Naval Base, or a Port, it was woefully inadequate throughout 1942 and darn near all of 1943. Here's some specs as to what was there:ORIGINAL: spence
The Japanese Navy didn't plan for a war at a long distance from Japan until the very end of the peace. Thus, they never made any great effort to develop overseas bases such as Truk or a substantial fleet train. "The Decisive Battle", the focus of their prewar training, was supposed to take place in home waters.
In the game Truk is a significant base at the start. From the link it really sounds like just a name on a map.
4th Naval Dock and Port Unit: took over facilities of So Seas Development Co. including a 30 ton floating crane and a 1500 (some say 2500) ton drydock. The only existing shore based ship repair facilities.
Truk Naval Transportation Unit (part of 4th Base Force): Since there were no docks for large vessels, supplies needed to be ferried to and/or from the bigger ships. A derrick, small rail carts, 40 trucks, barges, small harbor craft, tugs and Daihatsu/motor sampans were used for these purposes.
85th Sub Base Unit: constructed during May 1942, it serviced, supplied and did minor repairs to subs. Torpedoes were stored in caves and transported by light rail carts to the (single) shore pier.
Natsujima NSB, 21st (902nd) Kokutai, 104th Air Arsenal Unit (attached): three seaplane ramps, service area with hammerhead crane. Reportedly, the facility could overhaul 15 airplane engines a month at its height. Woof !! Big Time !!
“Even after the outbreak of the war the Japanese Navy was lazy in strengthening the Truk Naval Base. … [As] the area around the Solomon Islands became the main theater of fighting of both countries, Truk immediately began to be the center of the Japanese Naval operation. … There the Japanese Navy concentrated their repair ships and oil tankers and also endeavored to build repair facilities and oil tanks, but it was too late. How much the schedule of oil transportation form the southern area to the homeland was disturbed by the fact that the Japanese Navy always at that time suspended several tankers at Truk with the aim of using them only as oil tanks, was hardly overestimated. … At that time the Yamato and the Musashi … were nicknamed “the tankers Yamato and Musashi” because at that time they used to serve as tankers supplying fuel to small vessels instead of engaging in any operation.
As there were no available repair facilities at Truk, it was not seldom also that Japanese naval vessels were forced to go back to the homeland for repair, with the result that it affected the reduction of Japanese naval forces which would engage in fighting around the Solomon Islands.
It was as late as the summer of 1943 that the Japanese Navy at last started to construct three more strips at Truk, two on Harushima, and one on Kaede-shima. When the United States Navy made a sudden attack on Truk on 17 February 1944, those three bases had been almost completed, but they lacked such adequate equipment as radars and commanding equipment necessary for utilizing those bases perfectly.”
“The Pacific War Papers: Japanese Documents of World War II”, [ed] D.M.Goldstein, K.V.Dillon, Part I, Chihaya Masataka, “Chihaya Essays: Importance of Japanese Naval Bases Overseas”, Potomac (Brassey’s), Dulles VA, 2004.
Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.
Yippy Ki Yay.
RE: Atolls, Bases, and Bears, Oh My
Babes isn't balanced. I think you are losing sight of the options and time base, built into the Babes scenarios. There's lots of opportunity for forethought.ORIGINAL: mind_messing
Game balance as well.
What you're proposing is a step towards realism, but very much in favour of the Allies (with their abundance of tenders) while severely limiting Japanese fleet operations.
My suggestion to counter this would be to reduce the time it takes to convert some Japanese merchant ships into tenders.
Takes a year to convert a Kyushu/Husimi to an AR. Only a month to convert to an AKE. Allies have only 6 ARs until the end of 1942. Japan has 3, but can convert up to 58 by the end of 1942, if one starts early. Allies eventually get 12, but can convert more for a similar penalty, although the start date for Allied conversions begins much later than for Japan. For balance so far, ‘ad’ Japan.
Unfortunately, the Japanese ships that can best convert to AR/AS/AV are also the highest value cargo ships and the ones that best convert to ‘amphib attack’ configured AKs. TANSTAAFL. Ohhh, decisions, decisions.
Kinda the original point of the Babes scenarios. Forcing people to use tenders? Forcing people to make decisions? Woof !! What's the world coming to? Then there's the various Port units that can establish the fundamentals of a base if used properly. A bit of this, a bit of that, a few ships of the correct type, and "voila, she ees nakeed, no?"
Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.
Yippy Ki Yay.
RE: Atolls, Bases, and Bears, Oh My
Not as much as you would think. Making up a major base with LCUs means that the LCU VPs substitute for the Base VPs in many respects. If a base is primarily LCUs, and not just a simple hex numeric, it makes the whole thing of VPs a lot more relevant. I think this will have a positive impact on VP allocation. It will be dependent on a players build-up of his chosen locations: not some arbitrary map data location.ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
My only concern would be how it affects VPs.
Not goodnik for a mechanical, computer game centric, what-do-I-gotta-do-to-win, sort of approach. Sorry, but no cigars for the Moose.
Ciao. JWE
Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.
Yippy Ki Yay.
- Bullwinkle58
- Posts: 11297
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm
RE: Atolls, Bases, and Bears, Oh My
ORIGINAL: witpqs
That's why I respect VPs for what they represent, but not for strict interpretations like being just enough for auto-vic, or just short of auto-vic, and so on.ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: Symon
It works well for us. What think you?
My only concern would be how it affects VPs.
As said below, the VPs in this area of the map are a game balance issue for those of us who do play the game design. Most atolls' port VPs don't amount to much by themselves, but totaled they aren't nothing. And they are primarily an Allied issue in 1944-45 when auto-vic, the only way for an Allied player to win, is being pursued.
The Moose
- Bullwinkle58
- Posts: 11297
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm
RE: Atolls, Bases, and Bears, Oh My
ORIGINAL: Symon
Not as much as you would think. Making up a major base with LCUs means that the LCU VPs substitute for the Base VPs in many respects. If a base is primarily LCUs, and not just a simple hex numeric, it makes the whole thing of VPs a lot more relevant. I think this will have a positive impact on VP allocation. It will be dependent on a players build-up of his chosen locations: not some arbitrary map data location.ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
My only concern would be how it affects VPs.
Not goodnik for a mechanical, computer game centric, what-do-I-gotta-do-to-win, sort of approach. Sorry, but no cigars for the Moose.
Ciao. JWE
Sorry, I don't understand your answer. I was speaking to the loss of VPs built into the design if maximum Port size for atoll bases is reduced by 2/3 or whatever. I agree with the logic to a point--the real estate isn't there to make these guys real Ports. Tenders historically did substitute. But in game terms--and it is a game--VPs are hard-coded allocated to size and the investment required to buy that size, and then supply it to get max VPs.
From an Allied perspective this skews the victory conditions in a map area central to Allied operations, with no commensurate reduction of VPs in "normal" Japanese op areas.
The Moose